MANOSCA vs.

CA
G.R. No. 106440
January 29, 1996

Facts:

Petitioners inherited a piece of land.

When the parcel was ascertained by the National Historial Institute (NHI) to have been the birthsite of Felix
Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed a Resolution declaring the land to be a national
historical landmark which was approved later by the Minister of Education, Culture and Sports. Later, the
Secretary of Justice affirmed the legality of the measure and declared that NHI may initiate the institution of
condemnation proceedings for the purpose of acquiring the lot in question.
Accordingly, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor- General, instituted a complaint for
expropriation3 before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig for and in behalf of the NHI. At the same time,
respondent Republic filed an urgent motion for the issuance of an order to permit it to take immediate
possession of the property. The motion was opposed by petitioners.
The trial court issued an order fixing the provisional market and assessed values of the property and
authorizing the Republic to take over the property once the required sum would have been deposited with the
Municipal Treasurer of Taguig, Metro Manila.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the main thesis that the intended expropriation was not for a
public purpose and, incidentally, that the act would constitute an application of public funds, directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious entity, contrary to the provision of
Section 29(2), Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioners sought, in the meanwhile, a suspension in the
implementation of the order of the trial court.
The trial court issued its denial of said motion to dismiss.
Petitioners then lodged a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court
dismissed the petition. Likewise, the motion for the reconsideration of the decision was further denied.

Issue: Whether or not the "public use" requirement of Eminent Domain is extant in the attempted expropriation
by the Republic of the parcel of land so declared by the National Historical Institute ("NHI") as a national
historical landmark.
Ruling:

Yes. The "public use" requirement of Eminent Domain is extant in the attempted expropriation by the Republic
of the parcel of land so declared by the National Historical Institute ("NHI") as a national historical landmark.

The term "public use," not having been otherwise defined by the constitution, must be considered in its general
concept of meeting a public need or a public exigency. Xxx

The validity of the exercise of the power of eminent domain for traditional purposes is beyond question; it is not
at all to be said, however, that public use should thereby be restricted to such traditional uses. The idea that
"public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the public" has long been discarded.

The Supreme Court further dismissed the contention of petitioners and held that the attempt to give some
religious perspective to the case deserves little consideration what should be significant is the principal
objective of, not the casual consequences that might follow from, the exercise of the power. The purpose in
setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the
culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo.

The practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others
could well be true but such a peculiar advantage still remains to be merely incidental and secondary in nature.
Indeed, that only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish
the essence and character of public use.